Reply With Quote
So you voted for Bill Clinton instead of Bob Dole, right?
That made me laugh. I think it was a meaningful contribution.
So you voted for Bill Clinton instead of Bob Dole, right?
Dammit! I missed that one. Good job.
I didn't leave him out. I mentioned mayor as a qualification. I never said that automatically gets him my vote either. I would vote for him if he was the republican nominee. He has proven himself a good leader.
You guys seem to be reading into my words wrong, or else I just didn't word them well.
I mean that someone who has no leadership experience should not be considered as president. Fine, bring up Lincoln. I will remind those of you using old examples that times have changed.
I simply want an individual who has some record of leadership than can be examined. Is that too much to ask for as a minimum requirement for consideration into the highest leadership roll in this nation?
Now it’s not the same type of leadership roll, not being an executive type, but look at Nancy Pelosi. With all she said she would accomplish, once actually there, she is hit with realities that she never faced before. Has she accomplished anything she promised?
Our last several presidents have been governors for a reason. This is a job experience that is crucial for becoming president. Our last president without such experience was Gerald Ford, and he was not elected into the position. Before that, Nixon… Look how the corruption of congress followed him… He was al least a vice president also. Johnson was only a vice president too, rather than the head of a leadership. Look at how bad he botched up the Viet Nam war, making it more political than sincere. President Kennedy’s top leadership roll was the commander of PT-109. This isn’t a very big leadership roll, but at least he ended up being a pretty good president.
All presidents from president Carter, on, have been governors first. With more modern access to relevant facts than when we only had ABC, CBS, and NBC, I don’t see someone becoming a president without a proper background of experience.
I guess I could have voted for "none of the above?"
Please, he is easily more qualified than either Gore of Kerry. If I was registered as a republican, I would have voted for someone else in the 2000 primary. Probably Lamar Alexander, but I never followed politics, especially the primaries that close back then. I am registered as "not affiliated." I will probaly change my affiliation to republican for the Oregon primaries to help oust senator Smith, voting for his compe ion.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm....leadership....
Yes, Dole already had the repuiblican nomination. I voted for him because I dispise president Clinton. Had I been a registered republican, I would have voted for someone else in the primary.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm....leadership....
I surmise from WC's argument that a Senator or Representative is per se someone who does not serve is a leadership role (or roll, as the case may be). At least to this point, only those with executive experience seem to qualify as having held "leadership roles." I'm not sure I'd be willing to say that a Congressman is categorically disqualified from having held a leadership role. With the already-limiting litmus tests that we put our Presidential candidates through, it strikes me as fairly ridiculous to say that only those who rise through the executive ranks (governors and mayors) would have the qualifications to serve as President.
So you voted for the guy with, according to you, no leadership experience.
he did say he'd vote for rudy if he's the repub. nominee.
rudy picked kerik, kerik just got indicted.
It's interesting to me that most of the Presidents over the last 100 years have NOT had the sort of executive experience that WC seems to deem so essential to a President.
George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisnehauer, Harry Truman, Herbert Hoover, and Warren Harding had never served in any executive position of leadership before assuming office.
Those who had served as governors or the like don't universally instill confidence in requiring executive experience of a Presidential candidate: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Franklin Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Woodrow Wilson, William Howard Taft, Theodore Roosevelt, and William McKinley.
how many of them were rhode scholars?
Well, I missed president Bush (41) in my earlier assessments, but he was in an executive position, and the Director of the CIA.
I never said it had to be Mayor of Governor inclusively. I repeatedly made reference to leadership positions.
Come on DownTown. I consider you one of the more intelligent people who normally oppose my views. How did you get that wrong?
So less than a year as DCI makes you automatically qualified to be leader of the free world?
bush=cia, putin=kgb
Why are you being so single minded?
Let me state it another way. Leadership positions allow us to see tangible abilities for on to becom a leader in another role.
It does not automatically qualify them, but gives us something to reflect on their abilities.
Without a leadership role of some importance, why should we even consider them for the most important leadership roll?
Because you are so single minded about what qualifies someone to be president -- unless he's a Democrat.Why are you being so single minded?
And for 's sake -- it's ROLE you idiot. You're too stupid to see just how badly you are being ridiculed.
"unless he's a Democrat"
How did you ever read that into what I said?
Please explain. I initially asked:
Notice I included senator McCain, and representative Paul?I would like to know if anyone knows what qualifications senator Clinton, senator Obama, senator Edwards, senator McCain, or Representative Paul have for becoming president.
Will you please turn attack mode to the OFF position and think about what is really stated and meant for a few seconds?
Now maybe I missed it, but nobody has yet told me what any of their past qualifications of leadership are. You guys are only attacking me, and supposable lack of qualification of others.
Please, go back and read post #1 again.
Going by history, your premise is flawed.
That's all that really needs to be said.
No it isn't. From posting #29:
I mean that someone who has no leadership experience should not be considered as president. Fine, bring up Lincoln. I will remind those of you using old examples that times have changed.
So you wouldn't want a guy like Lincoln as president today.
That's your opinion. I disagree.
Trying to say "times have changed" is just as flawed as the original premise.
I hear this a lot, or it's twin brothers "9/11 changed everything" and "post 9/11 world"...as if the United States never experienced any national threat before then.
I wonder why George Washington didn't simply retain his commission after the Revolutionary War and go along with his officers in their planned coup in the name of protecting his new nation against the perilous threat of Britanofascists who wanted to destroy America? Why didn't Madison suspend the Cons ution after the British burned down the White House? How the did we manage to live through the Cold War with our civil liberties intact? Those were real threats, not this paranoid delusion about the U.S. transforming into an Islamic fundamentalist state.
Why is Congressman (Senator or Representative) categorically not a leadership position?
white, male, 35?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
